NAD⁺ Therapy and Cancer Risk: Separating Theory from Evidence

NAD⁺ (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide) has become increasingly discussed in longevity, metabolic health, and clinical wellness settings. Alongside this interest, questions are sometimes raised about whether NAD⁺ could increase cancer risk. It is important to be clear that this concern is theoretical rather than evidence-based.

Why the concern exists:

NAD⁺ is a naturally occurring co-enzyme present in every human cell. It plays a central role in mitochondrial energy production, cellular metabolism, and DNA repair pathways (including PARP activity). Because all dividing cells rely on NAD⁺, a theoretical concern has been raised that improving cellular energy availability or repair mechanisms could, in principle, also support the metabolism of an already existing cancer cell.

This idea is an extrapolation, not a demonstrated clinical effect. NAD⁺ is not a hormone, growth factor, or mitogen, and it does not initiate cancer. The theoretical concern is limited to the possibility of supporting established, active malignancy, not causing cancer in the first place.

What the evidence shows:

To date:

• There is no clinical evidence that NAD⁺ supplementation causes cancer.
• There is no human data showing increased cancer recurrence or progression attributable to NAD⁺.
• The cautionary narrative largely comes from in vitro or animal models, where metabolic pathways are artificially isolated and amplified in ways that do not reflect real-world clinical use.
• In human use — including IV NAD⁺ in wellness and addiction medicine settings — there has been no signal suggesting carcinogenesis.

In short, the concern remains hypothetical and has not been demonstrated in clinical practice.

Our clinic’s policy:

Despite the lack of evidence showing harm, our clinic takes a conservative, precautionary approach. We advise patients not to undertake NAD⁺ therapy within three years of a cancer diagnosis. This policy is not based on evidence of risk, but on an abundance of caution and a desire to avoid any theoretical ambiguity in patients with recent malignancy.

Historically, some patients have been fully informed of this rationale and have chosen to proceed regardless. Where this has occurred, it has been through shared decision-making, with clear documentation that the advice is precautionary rather than evidence-driven.

Key takeaway

The idea that NAD⁺ could cause cancer is theoretical, not supported by human evidence. Our guidance reflects a cautious clinical stance rather than demonstrated risk. As with many interventions in preventative and longevity medicine, transparency, informed consent, and individualised decision-making remain central.

To find out more about our NAD+ offering https://effectdoctors.com/nad/

To read more about NAD+ see:

Unlocking the Benefits of NAD+ IV Infusions: A Game-Changer for Cellular Health

NAD+ everything you need to know